I'm puzzled by how readily the idea of 2 points for the winner and 1 for the
loser in overtime games (either in the usual case of a goal scored or from a
shootout) is being endorsed.
 
It seems that there are inherent inequities in such a system.  One can
construct various examples.  Consider an evenly balanced 4-team league, each
team playing the others twice.  All season series are split, and all games end
in regulation time except for the two between teams 3 and 4.  Under current
rules, all teams have 6 points.  Under the proposed change, teams 1 and 2 each
have 6 points and 3 and 4 each have 7.  Why should teams 3 and 4 finish ahead
of 1 and 2 simply by virtue of going into overtime against each other in their
pair of games?
 
Or, in a larger league, say teams A, B, and C are tied in the standings with
n points.  A loses to some other team; B and C play each other in a game that
goes to overtime, with B winning.  Under the current system, A and C hold at n
points with B increasing to n+2.  Under the alternative, C increases to n+1,
and both B and C have gained on A.  Why should A be penalized for not going
into overtime.  What if this occurs on the final day of the regular season and
these are the 3 teams on the bubble for making the playoffs, with 2 of the 3
qualifying.  Why should C get in over A.  Perhaps one could argue that, in a
balanced schedule, opportunities for overtime play are equal over the course of
a season, but I don't think that this is a very satisfying line of reasoning.
 
A return to 10-minute overtimes has some appeal.  But a tie is a perfectly good
outcome to an evenly matched game, and 1 point a logical reward.
 
Chuck Henderson         [log in to unmask]